Productivity loss by cancer stage in patients newly diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma: A claims database analysis.

BACKGROUND: New cancer diagnoses are associated with employment decrease, workplace absenteeism, and attributable costs to employers. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the workplace productivity loss in the year following a new diagnosis of early-, intermediate-, or advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in commercially insured US adults. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using Merative MarketScan commercial claims to identify incident HCC diagnoses from 2010 to 2020. Patients were stratified into early-, intermediate-, or advanced-stage cohorts based on presence of secondary malignancy codes or first treatment received. Mean workdays lost and attributable cost in the year following a new diagnosis were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier sample averages to account for censoring. An exploratory analysis was conducted on subgroups in the early and advanced cohorts to assess productivity loss in patients with and without treatment. RESULTS: Mean workdays lost in the year following a new HCC diagnosis among the early, intermediate, and advanced cohorts was 22.6 days (95% CI = 16.0-29.8), 17.4 days (95% CI = 11.9-23.2), and 19.5 days (95% CI = 15.6-23.6), respectively. Corresponding indirect costs were $6,031(95% CI = $4,270-$7,953), $4,644 (95% CI = $3,176-$6,192), and $5,204 (95% CI = $4,163-$6,298). Early-stage patients without a liver transplant and advanced-stage patients who received systemic therapy had 19.7 (95% CI = 12.7-27.4) and 22.0 (95% CI = 16.6-27.7) mean workdays lost, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Productivity loss varies by stage and appears to be higher in early-stage patients who receive more intensive treatments in the first year following a new HCC diagnosis.

Health care costs and resource use of managing hemophilia A: A targeted literature review.

BACKGROUND: Hemophilia A (HA) is a rare, inherited, serious bleeding disorder characterized by a deficiency of blood clotting factor VIII (FVIII). HA is associated with considerable economic burden. OBJECTIVE: To identify, review, and summarize published studies on the health care resource use and costs of managing HA in the United States using a targeted literature review. METHODS: A comprehensive and targeted literature search was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews covering the period 2010 to 2022. We supplemented the search by searching gray literature (relevant abstracts, posters, and presentations of relevant scientific conferences from the past 6 years [2016 to 2022], reference lists, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review reports, and other sources). Eligibility criteria were developed based on the population, interventions, comparators, and outcomes framework. For comparability, costs were adjusted to 2021 US dollars. RESULTS: A total of 40 publications, including 17 full-text papers, 21 abstracts, and 2 Institute for Clinical and Economic Review reports, met eligibility criteria. Total annual health care costs per patient ranged from $213,874 to $869,940 and are mainly driven by the cost and intensity of prophylaxis with FVIII replacement concentrates, bypassing agents, and, most recently, emicizumab. Generally, we observed substantial heterogeneity in estimated treatment costs for HA, which varied depending on HA severity, treatment type and intensity, age, weight, and inhibitor status. Patients with inhibitors incurred much higher costs, but annual FVIII treatment costs are increasing over time among a subset of adult patients without inhibitors. Only 2 studies reported indirect costs; these were $13,220 and $27,978 annually among patients without and with inhibitors, respectively. Parents of children with HA spent $8,252 on non-mental health services and $258 on mental health services annually. CONCLUSIONS: The annual health care costs of managing HA are substantial and vary widely, depending on the study population definitions and intensity of prophylaxis. Total health care costs are dominated by the cost of prophylaxis. Indirect costs are also important. More robust studies in various settings, subpopulations, and assessing the impact of emerging therapies are required to fully elucidate the changing societal and economic impact, particularly regarding indirect costs and productivity loss for individuals living with HA. DISCLOSURES: Drs Solari and Thornhill are employees of Spark Therapeutics and Roche Group Shareholders. Ms Chen and Drs Cheng and Sullivan are employees of Curta, Inc. Spark Therapeutics paid Curta, Inc., to conduct the literature search. This study was funded by Spark Therapeutics. Spark Therapeutics was involved in the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data, article review, and the decision to submit the report for publication. Medical writing support was provided by Ashfield MedComms, an Inizio company.

Use of geriatric assessment in cancer clinical trials: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Older adults are underrepresented in cancer clinical trials despite accounting for most of the disease burden. Geriatric assessment (GA) could be used in clinical trials of cancer drugs for older adults to improve the clinical evidence for cancer drug use among older adults. OBJECTIVE: To examine patterns of use of GA in cancer clinical trials. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review of the studies reporting use of GA in a clinical trial setting for all cancer types and published between January 2010 and January 2020. Characteristics of GA use were extracted for each study, along with study phase, cancer type, and participant age (PROSPERO: CRD42020170584). RESULTS: We identified 320 studies and 63 studies met the final inclusion criteria. Among 74 purposes of GA use, the most common was to examine the association between impairments in GA domains and clinical outcomes (28/74, 38%). Among 258 GA domains assessed across 63 studies, physical status (59/258, 23%) and comorbidities (50/258, 19%) were most often evaluated. There was significant heterogeneity in the instruments used to assess physical function (n = 16) and mood disorders (n = 7). Most studies were phase 2 (32/63, 51%). CONCLUSIONS: GA is most often used in clinical trial settings to examine associations between GA-identified deficits and clinical outcomes. Significant heterogeneity exists in the GA instruments used across trials. Comprehensive and consistent incorporation of GA into future cancer clinical trial designs could help collect more older adult-specific clinical information and adjust trial eligibility criteria to increase representation by older adults.